
; 





pH8J 





OBEblEKCE TO THE LAW THE FOREMOST 
DUTY OF CONGEESS. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD, 

OF OHIO, 



m THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



'M.siVGh. 17 1880. 




WASHINGTON. 

1880. 



SPEECH 



HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD 



The House being in Committee of the "Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. No. 4924) making appropriation to supply certain deficiencies in the 
appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1880, and for other purposes — 

Mr. GARFIELD said : 

Mr. Chairman : The discussion of this bill has concentrated upon 
two topics, the public printing and the election laws. 

THE PUBLIC PRINTING. 

On the subject of the public printing I shall take no time, except to 
say this : After one of the saddest histories in the experience of this 
Government with the old contract system, which broke down by the 
weight of its own corruption, it was developed and proved beyond 
any controversy that in the four years preceding the administration 
of Abraham Lincoln, out of the private profits on the public jirinting 
and binding, the sum of $100,000 was contributed by the Public 
Printer for political purposes, mainly to carry the democratic elec- 
tions in Pennsylvania; and that vast contribution did not exhaust 
the profits of the Public Printer out of the Government. This expo- 
sure destroyed the wretched contract system ; and thereafter the Gov- 
ernment itself assumed the responsibility of the work. At first the 
Senate or the House of Representatives elected a Printer, as they had 
amanifest right to do under the clause of the Constitution which gives 
each House the power to elect its own officers. But when, by and 
by, the office grew into a great national establishment, in which all 
the printing and binding for all departments of the Government was 



done, it became manifest tliat the Senate was exercising a power of 
appointment unwarranted by the Constitution ; and in the year 1874, 
on the motion of Mr. Hale, of New York, a resolution was adopted 
by a two-tliirds vote suspending the rules of the House and making 
in order, on a sundry civil service appropriation bill, an amendment 
to change the law and make the Printer an officer of the United 
States, to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 
I had charge of that bill and voted for the amendment, as did nearly 
all my associates ; and it was adopted by the almost unanimous vote 
of this House, both parties uniting in declaring that the old law was 
unconstitutional, and that experience had proved it unwise ; repub- 
licans taking their share of responsibility for their own blunders and 
mistakes; all agreeing that the law ought to conform to the Consti- 
tution. 

When the democratic party came into power in 187(5, they amended 
that law by making it take efl'cct immediately. We had made it take 
effect when a vacancy should occur in the office of Public Printer. In 
187G the law was so changed as to make it take effect immediately. 
And that i)as3ed by the general consent of both parties. The propo- 
sition now is to go back, and, in the face of our past experience, make 
a change in this law which will not affect in any way the question 
of economy, which will not change one iota of the machinery of the 
management of the public printing, and does not pretend to bo in the 
direction of economy ; but merely abolishes a constitutional office and 
creates an unconstitutional one ; takes the appointing power out of 
the bauds of the President and unlawfully places it in the hands of 
this House, merely to get some democrat into office. This is to be 
done for no public good, but to satisfy the demands of party hunger. 
I have no doubt that this amendment will be, as it certainly ought to 
be, ruled out of order, and I will waste no further words in discuss- 
ing it. 

TIIK ELECTION LAWS. 

I will nowcall attention, during the short time left me, to what I con- 
sider a matter of far graver moment. My colleague, [Mr. McMaiion,] 
in his speech opening the discussion upon this bill, made the announce- 
ment in substance, and it remains uncontradicted and not protested 
against by any one on his side of the House, first, that " we have not 



hitherto made, do not iu this bill, aud will not in any future bill, 
make any appropriation whatever for supervisors or special deputy 
marshals, so far as they have to do with congressional elections." He 
asserts that it was not proper for any officer of the Government to 
appoint special deputy marshals when no appropriation had been made 
for that specific purpose. 

Then further on he declares — I quote from his printed speech : 

And I desire to say tbat because the Supreme Court of the United States has 
decided that the election law is constitutional by a sort of eight-by-seven decision — 
and I mean by that a division apparently according to party lines, (without im- 
pugning the good faith of any member of the Supreme Court, but to show how dif- 
ferently a legal question maj-appear to persona who have been educated in diflerent 
political schools) — that although that court has decided the constitutionality of the 
aw, that when we come, as legislators, to appropriate money it is our duty to say, 
is this law constitutional ? or, if constitutional, is it a good law, aud are we bound 
to appropriate money for it ? 

He undertakes, as will be seen, to throw contempt on that decision 
by styling it " a sort of eight-by-seven decision." I remind him that 
it is a seven-to-two decision, having been adopted by a larger num- 
ber of the members of the court than the majority of the decisions of 
that tribunal. It is a decision of a broad, sweeping character, and 
declares that Congress may take the whole control of congressional 
elections, or a partial control, as they choose ; that the election law 
as it stands on the national statute-book is the supreme law of the 
land on that subject. 

LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE THE LAWS OF EVEllY STATE. 

More than that : the Supreme Court, not only in this case but in 
another recent case, has made a declaration which ought to be en- 
graven upon the minds and hearts of all the peo.ple of this country. 
And this is its substance : 

That a law of Congress interpenetrates aud becomes a part of eveiy law of every 
State of this Union to which its subject-matter is applicable, and is binding upon 
all people and covers every foot of our soil. 

This is the voice of the Constitution. Now, therefore, uiulor this 
decision the election laws of the United States are the laws of every 
State of this Union. No judge of election, no State officer or other 
person connected with any congressional election, no elector who 
offers his ballot at any such election can, with impunity, lift his hand 



6 

or do any act against any of the provisions of these laws. They rest 
down upon congressional elections in every State like the " casing 
air," broad and general, protecting with their dignity every act and 
penetrating with their authority every function of congressional elec- 
tions. They are the supreme law of the land on that subject. 

CONGUESS THREATENS TO DISOBEY THE LAW. 

But now a Representative, speaking for the democratic party in this 
House, rises, not with the plea which he could have made with some 
show of plausibility last year, that the law is unconstitutional and 
that therefore they would not enforce it — but, with a constitutional 
law, declared so by the Supreme Court, covering him and filling the 
Republic from end to end, reaching everywhere and covering every 
foot of our soil where a congressional election can be held — he rises 
in his place and declares that the democratic party will not execute 
that law nor permit it to be obeyed. 

We who are the sworn law-makers of the nation, and ought to be 
examples of respect for and obedience to the law — we, who before 
we took our first step in legislation, swore before God and our coun- 
try that we would support the supreme law of the land — we are now 
invited to become conspicuous leaders in the violation of the law. 
My colleague announces his purpose to break the law and invites 
Congress to follow him in his assault upon it. 

Mr. Chairman, by far the most formidable danger that threatens 
the Republic to-day is the spirit of law-breaking which shows itself 
in many turbulent and alarming manifestations. The people of the 
Pacific Coast, after two years of wrestling with communism in the 
city of San Francisco, have finally grappled with this lawless spirit, 
and the leader of it was yesterday sentenced to penal servitude as a 
violator of the law. But what can we say to Dennis Kearney and his 
associates, if to-day w© announce ourselves the foremost law-breakers 
of the country and set an example to all the turbulent and vicious 
elements of disorder to follow us? 

XIANDATOIIY niAUACTEK OF THE ELECTION LAW. 

My colleague [Mr. McMaiion] tries to shield his violation of the 
law behind a section of the statutes which provides that no disburs- 
ing or other othcer shall make any contract involving the expendi 



ture of money beyond what is appropriated for the purpose. I answer 
that I hohl in my hand a later law, a later statute, which governs 
the restrictive law of which he speaks, which governs him and gov- 
erns the courts. It is the election law itself. 

I invite attention briefly to its substance. Sections 2011 and 2012 
of the Revised Statutes provide that upon the application of any two 
citizens of any city of more than twenty thousand inhabitants to have 
a national election guarded and scrutinized, the judge of the circuit 
court of the United States shall hold his court open during the ten 
days preceding the election. The law commands the judge of the 
court to so do. 

In the open court from day to day, and from time to time, the judge 
shall apiJoint, and, under the seal of the court, shall commission two 
citizens of different political parties who are voters within the pre- 
cinct where they reside, to be supervisors of the election. That law 
is mandatory upon the judge. Should he refuse to obey, he can be 
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in of6ce. He must not 
stop to inquire whether an appropriation has been made to pay these 
supervisors. The rights of citizens are involved, and upon their appli- 
cation the judge must act. 

Again section 2021 provides that on the application of two citizens 
the marshal of the United States shall appoint special deputy mar- 
shals to protect the supervisors in the execution of their duty. And 
the law is mandatory upon the marshal. He must obey it, under the 
pains and penalties of the law. What then ? "When the supervisors 
and special deputy marshals have been appointed they fiud their 
duties plainly prescribed in the law. And then section 5521 provides 
that if they neglect or refuse to perform fully all these duties enjoined 
upon them, thoy are liable to fine and imprisonment. They cannot 
excuse their neglect by paying, " We will not act because Congress 
has not appropriated the money to pay us." All these officers are 
confronted by the imperial command of the law— first to the judge 
and marshal to appoint, then to the supervisor and deputy marshal 
to act, and to act under the pains and penalties of fine and imprison- 
ment. Impeachment enforces the obedience of the judge; fine and 
imprisonment the obedience of the supervisors and deputy marshals. 

Now comes one other mandatory order : in the last section of this 



8 

long chapter of legislation, the majestic command of the law is ad 
dressed both to Congress and the Treasury. It declares that there 
"shall be paid" out of the Treasury $5 per day to these officers as 
compensation for their services. Here too the law is equally imperi ous 
and mandatory ; it addresses itself to the conscience of every member 
of this House, with only this difference : we cannot be impeached for 
disobedience; we cannot be fined or locked up in the penitentiary 
for voting "no," and refusing the appropriation ; we cannot be fined 
or imprisoned if we refuse to do our duty. And so, shielded by the 
immunity of his privilege as a Representative, my colleague sets the 
example to all officers and all people of deliberately and with clear- 
sighted purpose violating the law of the land. 

Thus he seeks to nullify the law. Thus he hopes to thwart the na- 
tion's " collected will." 

DANGER OF VITIATING THE ELECTIONS. 

Does my colleague reflect that in doing this he runs the risk of 
vitiating every national election ? Suppose his lead be followed, and 
the demand of citizens for supervisors and marshals is made and re- 
fused because an appropriation has not been voted. Does he not see 
the possibility of vitiating every election, where fraud and violence 
are not suppressed and the law has not been complied with ? Yet he 
would risk the validity of all the congressional elections of the United 
States. Rather than abandon his party's purpose he would make 
Congress the chief of the law-breakers of the land. 

Mr. Chairman, when I took my seat as a member of this House, I 
took it with all the responsibilities which the place brought upon me ; 
and among others was my duty to keep the obligations of the law. 
Where the law speaks in mandatory terms to everybody else and then 
to me, I should deem it cowardly and dishonorable if I should skulk 
behind my legislative privilege for tlie pnrpose of disobeying and 
breaking tlie supreme law of the land. [Applause.] 

The issue now made is somewhat diflferent from that of the last 
session, but, in my judgment, it is not less significant and dangerous. 
I would gladly waive any party advantage which this controversy 
might give, foj- the sake of that calm and settled peace which would 
reign in this Hall if we all obeyed the law. But if the leaders on 
the other side are still determined to rush upon their fate by forcing 



9 

upon the country this last issue— that because the democratic party- 
happen not to like a law they will not obey it— because they happen 
not to approve of the spirit and character of a law they will not let 
it be executed— I say to gentlemen on the other side if you are deter- 
mined to make such an issue, it is high time that the American peo- 
ple should know it. 

THE SACRED CHARACTER OF THE LAW. 

Here is the volume of our laws. More sacred than the twelve 
tables of Rome, this rock of the law rises in monumental grandeur 
alike above the people and the President, above the courts, above 
Cono-ress, commanding everywhere reverence and obedience to its 
supreme authority. Yet the dominant party in this House virtually 
declares that " any part of this volume that we do not like and can- 
not repeal we will disobey. We have tried to repeal these election 
laws ; we have failed because we had not the constitutional power 
to destroy them ; the Constitution says they shall stand in their au- 
thority and power ; but we, the democratic party, in defiance of the 
Constitution, declare that if we cannot destroy them- outright by re- 
peal, they shall be left to crumble into ruin by wanton and lawless 
neglect." 

Mr. Chairman, I ask gentlemen on the other side whether they wish 
to maintain this attitude in regard to the legislation of this country? 
Are they willing to start on a hunt through the statutes, and deter- 
mine for themselves what they will obey and what they will disobey ? 
That is the meaning of my colleague's speech. If it means anything 
it means that. He is not an old Brandenburg elector, but an elector 
in this novel and modern sense, that he will elect what laws he will 
obey and what he will disobey, and in so far as his power can go, he 
will infect with his spirit of disobedience all the good people of this 
country who trust him. 

THE DANGEROUS EXAIII'LE OF LAW-BREAKING liY CONGRESS. 

I ask gentlemen whether this is a time when it is safe to disregard 
and weaken the authority of law. In all quarters, the civil society 
of this country is becoming honeycombed through and through by 
disintegrating forces— in some States by the violation of contracts 
and the repudiation of debts ; in others by open resistance and defi- 
ance ; in still others by the reckless overturning of coustitutioiis and 



10 

letting "the red fool-fury of the Seine" run riot among our people and 
Luild its blazing altars to the strange gods of ruin and misrule. All 
these things are shaking the good order of society and threatening the 
foundations of our Government and our peace. In a time like this, 
more than ever before, this country needs a body of law-givers clothed 
and in their right minds, who will lay their hands upon the altar of 
the law as its defenders, not its destroyers. And yet now, in the name 
of party, for some supposed party advantage, my colleague from Ohio 
announces, and no one on his side has said him nay, that they not 
only have not in the past obeyed but in the future they will not obey 
this law of the laud which the Supreme Court has just crowned with 
the authority of its sanction. If my colleague chooses to meet that 
issue, if he chooses to go to the country with that plea, I shall regret 
it deeply for my country's sake ; but if I looked only to my party's 
interest, it would give me joy to engage in such a struggle. 

The contest of last autumn made the people understand the tend- 
encies of gentlemen on the other side. Now, this cool, calm, delib- 
erate, assassination of the law will not be tolerated. We have had a 
winter to freeze out our passion, we have had a summer to thaw out 
our indifference, we have had the changing circles of the year to 
bring us around to order and calmness, and yet all the stars in their 
courses seem to have shed their influence on my colleague to Are him 
with a more desperate madness and drive his party on to a still sad- 
der fate. [Applause on the republican side.] 

I trust and believe that we may yet find some responses from the 
other side of the House that ^v ill prevent this course of procedure. 
If we do, I will gladly give away any party advantage for the sake of 
strengthening the foundations of law and good order. And I there- 
fore appeal to gentlemen on the other side to prevent a disaster which 
their party leaders are preparing, not for themselves alone, but for 
our common country. I hope before this day is over we may see such 
a vote in this Chamber uiion this bill as will put an end to this mis- 
erable business, and cast out of these halls the dregs of that unfortu- 
nate and crazy extra sessiou. [Applause on the republican side.] 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



013 789 626 6 



I 



